Melchizedek the Priest-King blessing Abram

The title of this post is actually somewhat deceptive as it implies that the post is going to be about Melchizedek, who can be considered a king, a priest, and also a god, and about the “Forbidden Degrees” (sounds tantalizing, eh?), which the title seems to suggest have some connection to Melchizedek. Well, as far as I know, there is no direct connection, so sorry if that was misleading.

But this post is about two exciting, if apparently unrelated, subjects that I’ve read about recently.

Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God

First, I would like to post a few very interesting remarks on the person of Melchizedek that I was recently re-reading in an article by my PhD supervisor, James Davila, entitled “Melchizedek: King, Priest, and God” (in The Seductiveness of Jewish Myth: Challenge or Response, ed. S. Daniel Breslauer (Albany: State University of New York) 217-34). This article contains some of the most current, thorough, and exciting research on Melchizedek I’ve seen. It covers the Melchizedek traditions from the Old Testament (Gen. 14; Ps. 110), the New Testament (Hebrews), the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QMelchizedek; Songs of Sabbath Sacrifice), Gnostic texts (2nd Book of Jeu, Pistis Sophia, a Coptic Gnostic tractate), and comparisons with the Ugaritic (Canaanite) traditions.

I highlight here some of the most significant ideas.

Davila addresses the first mention of Melchizedek, in Gen. 14:18–21.  Here, Melchizedek is presented as the king of Salem (which Davila later identifies as Jerusalem) and priest of God Most High (El Elyon). He notes that scholars have difficulty dating this passage and identifying its source.  John Van Seters wants to date it to the post-exilic period, imagining that Melchizedek describes the priestly leadership of the Second Temple period. Davila, on the other hand, rejects this view, explaining:

I see no reason for the post-exilic priesthood to hold up a non-Israelite priest-king as an example unless he had already been firmly established in the traditions of the First Temple period. I read Genesis 14 as an epic tale of the heroic exploits of the Abram that, in its present form, serves to show the ancient roots of the priesthood held by the line of Davidic kings. ((Davila, 218))

Psalm 110, Davila suggests, “unambiguously associates the priesthood of Melchizedek with the king in Zion.”¹ This psalm, one of the “royal psalms”, is the only other mention of Melchizedek in the Hebrew Bible.  Most scholars agree that it had its life setting “in the pre-exilic Judean royal cult located in Solomon’s temple during the period of the Judean monarchy.” It is often associated with an annual New Year enthronement festival. The key verse (v. 4) in this psalm reads: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. This promise of Melchizedek priesthood is given to the Davidic king.  Davila notes:

[T]here are other indications that the Davidic line of kings also carried out priestly functions. In 2 Samuel 6 we are told that  David himself wore a priestly ephod and danced before the ark of the covenant when it was brought into Jerusalem. The list of David’s court officials in 2 Sam. 8:15–18 also informs us that “David’s sons were priests” (v. 18). Thus, Psalm 110 associates a priesthood of Melchizedek with the Davidic royal cult in the Jerusalem temple.²

So, in summary, the Hebrew Bible presents Melchizedek as (apparently) a mortal man who is both the king of Jerusalem and a priest of God Most High. He was seen as the model for the Israelite kingship ideology, and the Davidic kings were likewise seen as both king of Jerusalem and priest of God Most High. Besides the passages in Genesis and Psalm 110, Melchizedek is not mentioned again in the Hebrew Bible — which we may think odd considering his apparent stature and influence in pre-exilic times.  Of course the great histories of the Bible were written just before and after the exile, and these scribes had varying (mostly negative) opinions concerning the monarchy, as well as significantly different religious ideas from that of the royal cult of pre-exilic times. It is only in the New Testament book of Hebrews that we hear tell of Melchizedek again. We read in Hebrews 7:1–3:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;  2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;  3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Davila comments:

It is then argued that Melchizedek was greater than both Abraham and the Levitical Priesthood, and that Jesus is a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek as described in Psalm 110. For the writer of Hebrews, Melchizedek is a preexistent and immortal priestly divine being “like the Son of God.”³

He next turns his analysis to the Qumran text 11QMelchizedek, which although fragmentary, gives some incredible insights regarding the community’s view of this figure, which differs greatly from the simple treatment in the OT and gives possible insights into the thinking of the writer of Hebrews. Davila explains that this text speaks eschatologically and “seems to give a chronology leading up to the eschaton and then describes the final judgment as administered by a divine being named Melchizedek.” Melchizedek is supposed to come at the end of the “tenth jubilee”, on the Day of Atonement, to judge the nations, save the good and destroy the wicked. Furthermore, Davila notes:

…[I]n line 10 of this text Melchizedek is called a “god” (elohim)…So in this document from Qumran Melchizedek is pictured as an angelic or divine being (an elohim) who may have priestly associations and who is an eschatological judge.⁴

Davila goes on to highlight some of the other beliefs expressed in further texts from Qumran and from Gnostic sources.  In most of them, Melchizedek is described as an angelic high priest or god and even identified as Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. What are we to make of all this? Davila is right on with his analysis of it all. He says, summarizing the trajectory of these traditions:

He begins as a king and priest of pre-Davidic Jerusalem and then, some centuries later, is described also a a divine heavenly being, a god (elohim or theos) who defeats and destroys the forces of evil at the last judgment and delivers souls from the underworld. I submit that the problem of the development of this tradition has never been squarely face by scholars. How do we get from Melchizedek the priest-king to Melchizedek the god? My proposal is this: his divinity was not invented in the Second Temple period; rather it was suppressed in the Hebrew bible. In other words, the apparent change from man to god is a matter of suppression of older traditions that were excluded from the biblical canon, not of innovation in the Second Temple literature.⁵

This conclusion is remarkably significant. According to Davila, we are to assume that in the royal religion of the First Temple, Melchizedek would have been seen as a priest-king who was deified.  I think it stands to reason that we could say, then, that the subsequent kings of Jerusalem of the Davidic line could have been viewed in like manner. This helps us understand why in Psalm 45:6 the king is specifically addressed as a god.

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.

While the idea that the king is somehow divine is common in Egyptian and other Ancient Near Eastern religions, the idea has not been readily accepted for the Israelite/Judean kings, and that has to do greatly with the fact that there is not much evidence for the idea in the Old Testament as we now have it. However, as Davila states it, it is very likely that these ideas did exist, once upon a time, but were suppressed by later writers and editors that no longer followed that belief system.

The Seal of Melchizedek

The Forbidden Degrees

The following is taken from Dr. Andrei Orlov’s blog (see the specific post here; don’t worry that some of it is in Russian, most is English). For those who haven’t followed this blog long, Andre Orlov was my adviser for my MA program in Theology at Marquette University.  Orlov (who has also written much on Melchizedek), is an expert in the mystical traditions of early Judaism.

I have reproduced some passages that he posted on his blog from the Hagigah (or Chagigah), a Jewish treatise found in the Babylonian Talmud.  I am no expert on these writings, so I really couldn’t share much background info on them with you. It seems that the word hagigah signifies “festivity” and refers to a “festal-offering” that was given at one or more of the three principal pilgrimage festivals of ancient Judaism. The writings apparently give rules for ritual cleanliness and guidelines for the offerings, but offer rules for many other subjects as well. Again, I’m no expert on this, but from what I’ve seen and what I quote below, there is some very interesting material, if you can get past all the technical language and debating over ritual requirements.

A word of warning: the following is not easy to get through and even less easy to understand.  If you can get anything out of it, consider yourself a true sage and enlightened soul!

One more introductory thought: the rabbis (R. Johanan, etc.) cited here were under the belief that certain mystical doctrines were too sacred to speak of (only under certain circumstances with worthy and prepared individuals). These include, as you can read below, the “forbidden degrees”, the “Story of Creation”, and the writings of Ezekiel concerning “the Chariot” (God’s throne). There were certain consquences (good and harmful) when these topics were spoken of, so the greatest of care was needed in addressing them, and they were never expounded on in public. I am not quite sure what the “forbidden degrees” refers to (I can speculate, but may be wrong). I have seen other lists of these forbidden topics, and from what I can remember, I believe the topic of sacred marriage (perhaps as discussed in Song of Solomon?) is sometimes cited. If anyone has any further insights on this, please let me know!

UPDATE: In an email, Dr. Orlov directed me to Rachel Elior’s opinion on what the “forbidden degrees” were as explained in her book, The Three Temples. She indicates that they may have had reference to “the sexual union of the Cherubim” in the Holy of Holies of the temple (I wasn’t far off!).  Now, if the rabbis wouldn’t talk about it, I probably shouldn’t either. I will say that there are some Jewish traditions that say that the cherubim that were in the Holy of Holies were (at least at times) understood to be entwined in a conjugal embrace which likely has something to do with the reason that holiest place was sometimes called “the bridal chamber.” To read more about this, have a look at Raphael Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess, and also Eugene Seaich’s A Great Mystery: The Secret of the Jerusalem Temple, The Embracing Cherubim and At-One-Ment with the Divine.

Here is the text, thanks to Dr. Orlov’s blog:

m. Hagigah 2:1 The forbidden degrees may not be expounded before three persons, nor like Story of Creation before two, nor [the chapter of] the Chariot before one alone, unless he is a Sage that understands of his own knowledge.

Whoever gives his mind to four things it were better for him if he had not come into the world — what is above ? what is beneath ? what was beforetime? and what will be hereafter? And whosoever takes no thought for the honour of his Maker, it were better for him if he had not come into the world.

b. Hagigah 13 R. Johanan said to R. Eleazar: Come, I will instruct you in the ‘Work of the Chariot’. He replied: I am not old enough. When he was old enough, R. Johanan died. R. Assi [then] said to him: Come, I will instruct you in the “Work of the Chariot’. He replied: Had I been worthy, I should have been instructed by R. Johanan, your master.

The Rabbis taught: There was once a child who was reading at his teacher’s house the Book of Ezekiel, and he apprehended what Hashmal was, whereupon a fire went forth from Hashmal and consumed him. So they sought to suppress the Book of Ezekiel, but Hananiah b. Hezekiah said to them: If he was a Sage, all are Sages! What does [the word] Hashmal mean?-Rab Judah said: Living creatures speaking fire. In a Baraitha it is taught: [Hashmal means], At times they are silent, at times they speak. When the utterance goes forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are silent, and when the utterance goes not forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, they speak. b. Hag 14b Our Rabbis taught: Once R. Johanan b. Zakkai was riding on an ass when going on a journey, and R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak was driving the ass from behind. [R. Eleazar] said to him: Master, teach me a chapter of the ‘Work of the Chariot’.2 He answered: Have I not taught you3 thus: ‘Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a Sage and understands of his own knowledge’? [R. Eleazar] them said to him: Master, permit me to say before thee something which thou hast taught me.4 He answered, Say on! Forthwith R. Johanan b. Zakkai dismounted from the ass, and wrapped himself up,5 and sat upon a stone beneath an olive tree. Said [R. Eleazar] to him: Master, wherefore didst thou dismount from the ass? He answered: Is it proper that whilst thou art expounding the ‘Work of the Chariot’, and the Divine Presence is with us, and the ministering angels accompany us, I should ride on the ass! Forthwith, R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak began his exposition of the ‘work of the Chariot’, and fire6 came down from heaven and encompassed all the trees in the field; [thereupon] they all began to utter [divine] song. What was the song they uttered? — Praise the Lord from the earth, ye sea-monsters, and all deeps . . . fruitful trees and all cedars . . . Hallelujah.8 An angel9 [then] answered10 from the fire and said: This is the very ‘Work of the Chariot’. [Thereupon] R. Johanan b. Zakkai rose and kissed him on his head and said: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, Who hath given a son to Abraham our father, who knoweth to speculate upon, and to investigate, and to expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’ — There are some who preach well but do not act well, others act well but do not preach well, but thou dost preach well and act well. Happy art thou, O Abraham our father, that R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak hath come forth from thy loins.

Now when these things were told R. Joshua, he and R. Jose the priest were going on a journey. They said: Let us also expound the ‘Work of the Chariot’; so R. Joshua began an exposition. Now that day was the summer solstice; [nevertheless] the heavens became overcast with clouds and a kind of rainbow appeared in the cloud, and the ministering angels assembled and came to listen like people who assemble and come to watch the entertainments of a bridegroom and bride. [Thereupon] R. Jose the priest went and related what happened before R. Johanan b. Zakkai; and [the latter] said: Happy are ye, and happy is she that bore you; happy are my eyes that have seen thus. Moreover, in my dream, I and ye were reclining on Mount Sinai, when a Bath Kol was sent to us, [saying]: Ascend hither, ascend hither! [Here are] great banqueting chambers, and fine dining couches prepared for you; you and your disciples and your disciples’ disciples are designated for the third class. But is this so? For behold it is taught: R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were three discourses: R. Joshua discoursed before R. Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Akiba discoursed before R. Joshua, Hanania b. Hakinai discoursed before R. Akiba; — whereas R. Eleazar b. ‘Arak he does not count! — One who discoursed [himself], and others discoursed before him, he counts; one who discoursed [himself], but others did not discourse before him, he does not count. But behold there is Hanania b. Hakinai before whom others did not discourse, yet he counts him! — He at least discoursed before one who discoursed [before others].

1. Davila, 219
2. Davila, 219
3. Davila, 221
4. Davila, 222
5. Davila, 224

I graduated from Marquette University with an MA degree in Theology, with an emphasis in Biblical Theology.  The past couple of months have been pretty rough, with MA comprehensive exams, MA essay, final exams, term papers, etc.  Fortunately, all that time in the library and sitting in front of the computer paid off and I am finally done with my Master’s degree. It was a great journey and I will be forever greatful to my professors and colleagues for helping me get through it.  It has been extremely interesting to be a lone LDS student in a theology program of a Catholic (Jesuit, no less) university.  But despite being the “odd man out”, I felt very welcomed and befriended at Marquette.  I learned a lot and will always cherish these couple of years here.  While I really loved most all my professors, I am especially grateful for having had the opportunity to study with Dr. Andrei Orlov, with whom I share many academic interests, and for his help and support as my advisor during my studies at Marquette. 

During finals week (and luckily after my finals were done!), my wife gave birth to our fourth child, a baby girl we named Christine.  We are overjoyed and feel very blessed to have this special new spirit in our home.  We were also very happy to have my mother stay with us for a while to help out. It was great for our other children to be with their grandma and for her to see them and the new baby.  Was it hard to have a new baby right at the end of the semester? Well, I was sleep-deprived already, so baby Christine didn’t really make that issue worse than it already was!  She has actually been a very good baby and already sleeps through most of the night! Both my wife and the baby are doing very well.  While we often hear about post-partum depression, my wife (and I) have really had our spirits elevated by having this beautiful baby who has recently come from our Heavenly Father’s arms to ours.

I have been accepted to two great PhD programs, both in the UK — Durham University and the University of St Andrews.  I have not yet decided which one I will attend.  At Durham, I would be studying under the supervision of Professor C.T.R. Hayward, known for his excellent work on the Jerusalem Temple and early Jewish literature.  At St Andrews, I would be studying under Professor James Davila, head of their School of Divinity, and one of the very best scholars in the area of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, and early Jewish and Christian literature.  Both schools are very good, their religion departments usually being ranked third and fourth in the UK after Oxford and Cambridge.  If anyone has any input on either of these schools, I would love to hear it.  Whichever school I choose, I will be doing research on the temple, ritual, and ascension/enthronement motifs in the Scriptures and in extra-canonical literature.

I will be traveling to the UK next week to visit Durham and St Andrews, and also to attend Margaret Barker’s temple symposium.  A big thank you to my dear friends who have made this trip possible.  I will be visiting the campuses of the schools I was accepted to in order to get to know them better before I make my final decision.  I have my mind made up pretty well, but I really felt I needed to get to know the schools, professors, and towns where I and my family may be living.  I am also very much looking forward to the temple symposium, which will focus on the role of music in the temple. You can read more about it here.  You can be sure that I will be taking good notes at this conference — I feel incredibly blessed just to have the opportunity to attend! And I can’t wait to get a good look around the Temple Church where the conference will take place. 

As I went through my first year of graduate school at Marquette University, I had the opportunity to be exposed to and ponder about the views of many Christian denominations regarding the infallibility of the Bible. I met conservative evangelicals who absolutely could not admit that there might be a single error in the biblical text–”What kind of a God would so powerless as to allow errors to creep into His holy Word?” I met more liberal Protestants who saw the Bible as the Word of God, but viewed it as mostly metaphorical–”It doesn’t really matter if there are errors in transmission as long as the story is still inspirational.” As it is a Catholic school, the most prevalent view was the scholarly opinion that recognizes that there have been a good many errors in the transmission and translations of the texts–but that for faithful Catholics, it is the holy tradition passed down to them that makes up for any inadequacies in the written word.  Some of my peers may disagree with that assessment, but such is the general perspective that I have been able to perceive.  One thing that I am sure that they all agree on, however, is that the canon of scripture is full–there is to be no more revelation from Heaven that can be counted as scripture alongside the Holy Bible.

It has been interesting for me to compare these opinions with Joseph Smith’s views on the Bible. Obviously, this last point about the canon of scripture being closed with the end of the New Testament was not accepted by the Prophet. He did not speak much on the topic of canon, but the following quote says quite enough:

 “Is not the canon of the Scriptures full?” If it is, there is a great defect in the book, or else it would have said so (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Three: 1838-39, p. 121).

Many critics of the Church–and many not-so-critical, but curious colleagues–have imagined that Joseph’s insistence on producing additional scripture outside of the Bible amounts to his rejection of the Bible, or at least to his diminishing of its value. However, this was simply not the case.  As I was reading W.J. Walsh’s post-exam dissertation, The Ascension Theology of Joseph Smith, I was reminded of just how profoundly Joseph Smith knew and valued the Bible–both the Old and New Testaments.

Joseph Smith’s Knowledge and Use of the Bible

The Prophet truly knew the Bible forwards and backwards and it showed in everything he said and did.  Walsh conveys this point well in Chapter 2 of his paper, as he launches into his discussion of why Smith found it necessary to “add” to the Bible. It was certainly not because he wanted to discount the word of God as found in that book. Walsh expounds on the extent of Smith’s biblical knowledge:

Smith’s own knowledge of the Bible was nothing short of profound, though his interpretations have been considered heterodox by Nicaeans [modern Christians]. While Smith’s knowledge of the bible has always been appreciated, a fairly recent study has suggested his knowledge of the OT and NT was extremely deep. Richard C. Galbraith painstakingly compared many of Smith’s most important writings and sermons to the biblical text and was able to find OT and NT phrases and partial phrases buried consistently throughout almost every one of his works, including impromptu ones. This linkage is strong evidence Smith was so engrossed in biblical literature that its language became his own (p. 59).

This trait is easily noticed by anyone who reads Joseph Smith’s words.  The Bible was certainly of great importance to Joseph Smith. However, despite this strong endorsement of the Bible, Joseph did not believe that it was infallible. As we know, he believed it to be the Word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly.”

Inadequacies in the Biblical Text

Walsh goes through and summarizes (pp. 59-60) what Joseph Smith saw that was missing from our modern biblical text. He says:

To summarize Smith’s view, the Bible alone is inadequate in conveying God’s will to mankind because it is sometimes ambiguous, irrelevant, transmitted and translated erroneously, and incomplete.

• Ambiguous–Smith believed that many parts of the Bible were ambiguous and open to conflicting interpretation.

 …[T]he teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passage of Scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible (History of the Church, Vol. 1, Ch. 1, p. 4).

• Irrelevant–While some universal truths are taught in the Bible, Smith believed some of the biblical messages are not relevant because they are no longer in their original historical context.

The Bible contains revelations given at different times to different people, under different circumstances… (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 20, p. 277).

• Transmitted and translated erroneously–Smith believed the Bible was transmitted to later generations in a way that did not accurately reflect the intent of the original prophetic and apostolic authors.

I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests [David's note: see my post on corrupt priests here] have committed many errors (HC, Vol. 6, Ch. 3, p. 57).

From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled (HC, Vol. 1, Ch. 18, p. 245).

There are many things in the Bible which do not, as they now stand, accord with the revelations of the Holy Ghost to me (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 22, p. 425).

We believe the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly… (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

I am now going to take exceptions to the present translation of the Bible in relation to these matters. Our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation (HC, Vol. 5, Ch. 17, p. 342).

• Incompleteness–Even when the Bible was transmitted correctly as far as possible, Smith believed it was incomplete.

From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teachings of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anyting more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation; for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God…(HC, Vol. 2, Ch. 1, p. 18).

Joseph Smith Works to Complete the Bible

In agreement with these views, Joseph Smith believed that he was chosen to receive revelation, by way of the Holy Spirit, that would add to the Bible. As Walsh points out (p. 61), Joseph was not simply creating the equivalent of ”holy tradition”, scriptural commentary, exegesis, or midrash–but “legitimate new revelation equal to the original apostolic and prophetic biblical writings.”

Besides adding additional books of scripture (Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) to stand alongside the Bible, confirming and completing its doctrine, Joseph worked during most of his prophetic career on an “inspired version” of the Bible, often referred to as the Joseph Smith Translation. Of this work, Walsh explains:

In 1830, Smith attempted to correct the deficiencies of the Bible noted earlier. His corrections consist of additions, deletions, and rearrangements to over 3,400 verses in the OT and NT. His corrections vary from minor editing to reconstructions of whole chapters…In my view, the JST attempts to clarify ambiguous passages, eliminate irrelevant verses, correct transmission and translation errors, and fill in incomplete portions of the text through prophetic commentary. Thus, Smith intended the JST to be a combination of restoration and commentary. In all cases, Smith believed he was creating a version of the Bible closer to the intent of God than the one handed down through the generations (p. 64).

For those who have a testimony of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, his contribution to our understanding of the Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its fullness is incalculable. That there have been uncountable errors in the transmission of biblical texts is now commonly held scholarly opinion. Bart Ehrman for one (although he is a very outspoken and controversial one), suggests that among all the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we know of (counting Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and other manuscripts), there are up to 400,000 or more variants known. He says:

We do not know for sure because, despite impressive developments in computer technology, no one has yet been able to count them all. Perhaps, as I indicated earlier, it is best simply to leave the matter in comparative terms. There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament (Misquoting Jesus, New York: HarperCollins, 2005, pp. 89-90).

Ehrman indicates that these variations include both accidental changes and intentional changes, as the Prophet suggested. Joseph Smith knew that because of errors such as these, and also because many “plain and precious” truths were removed or excluded before the canon was even compiled, the Bible is not infallible or complete–although it should still be read as the word of God.

I recently received an e-mail from my Church Educational System (CES) supervisor, Thomas F. Olmstead–I will soon be starting my second year as a volunteer early-morning seminary teacher–who informed me of a great book that deals with the doctrine of deification as it was passed on in the Greek Orthodox tradition. I have not yet got my hands on a copy, but Bro. Olmstead highly recommended it.

The book is by Norman Russell and is entitled The Doctrine of Deification in Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford University Press, 2004). He also mentioned that it was reviewed not long ago in BYU Studies, vol. 46, no.1 (2007).  From the back cover:

“The book traces the history of deification from its birth as a second-century metaphor with biblical roots to its maturity as a doctrine central to the spiritual life of the Byzantine Church. It begins with two chapters on the doctrine’s antecedents in Graeco-Roman and Jewish culture which draw attention to the contribution of Rabbinic exegesis, and also to the fact that in speaking of the soul’s ascent to God as deification Christian writers anticipated the pagan Neo-Platonist. Although the first enunciation of deification is in Irenaeus’ celebrated ‘exchange formula’. it was in Alexandria that the doctrine was fully elaborated. Two important chapters discuss and contextualize the different Alexandrian approaches from Clement to Cyril, bringing out the pervasive influence of Origen, who develops the idea of the rational creature’s participation through the Son and the Spirit in a dynamic divinity deriving from the Father. The technical vocabulary of deification becomes problematical for Cyril of Alexandria, who replaces it with references to 2 Peter 1:4 (‘partakers of the divine nature’). It was therefore through Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the confessor rather than Cyril that deification entered the Byzantine tradition.
Maximus’ many discussions of deification (or ‘theosis’) are examined in detail, for in his concept of theosis as God’s gift of himself to human beings through participation in the divine energies the patristic doctrine of deification comes to full maturity…. Two appendices review deification in the Syraic and Latin fathers, and present a survey of the Greek vocabulary of deification to the end of the fifth century.”

From the Introduction:

“They crystallized for me something for which I had been searching, a vision of man transfigured by the divine energies” (intro. p.4).

“Appendix 2 summarizes my lexical findings. Briefly, then, Christian usage of deification terms expressing the soul’s ascent to God precedes the pagan usage rather that the other way round, as is often assumed” (intro. p.8).

My thanks to Bro. Olmstead for introducing me to this book!

New Articles by Dr. Andrei Orlov

Dr. Orlov recently sent me the following links to some new articles that he has written. I thought they would be of interest to this audience.

IN THE MIRROR OF THE DIVINE FACE: THE ENOCHIC FEATURES OF THE EXAGOGE OF EZEKIEL THE TRAGEDIAN http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/mosesmetatron.pdf

The Vessels of Light: The Luminous Aeon Traditions in 2 (Slavonic) Enoch http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/vessels.html

Praxis of the Voice: The Divine Name Traditions in the Apocalypse of Abraham
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/jbl.pdf

 I’m sure I will be discussing these articles on this blog at some point in the near future. Until then, please have a look at the links and tell me what you think of these new articles.  Our thanks to Dr. Orlov for the links and for his tireless and excellent research!

One of my main intentions when I decided to commence this blog was to share some of the great materials I have come in contact with as I have studied at Marquette University. I have had many great professors in the year I have been at MU.  One of the professors that I find I have most in common with, to the point that I chose him as my academic advisor, is Dr. Andrei A. Orlov.  I spoke of him previously and posted links to some of his groundbreaking research on 2 Enoch here.

Although well known for his work on Enoch, Dr. Orlov has published well over 30 articles (see www.andreiorlov.com) , many of which are on topics other than the Enoch tradition. Today I wanted to look at a few ideas from an article that he wrote on the Jacob tradition, entitled “The Face as the Heavenly Counterpart of the Visionary,” published most recently as part of his book From Apocalypticism to Merkabah Mysticism: Studies in the Slavonic Pseudepigrapha (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 114; Leiden: Brill, 2007), pp. xii+481. $207.00. ISBN 90-04-15439-6.

The Ladder of Jacob

In this article, Dr. Orlov discusses the significance of themes found in a Slavonic pseudepigraphal text known as the Ladder of Jacob. Although its origins are obscure, this text was possibly written in the second century AD by Christians, and was based on Jewish traditions. It has many similarities to the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Odes of Solomon, the Gospel of Thomas, and other similar texts.

In Ladder of Jacob, we see a continuation/expansion of Jacob’s dream in Gen 28, where he sees a ladder connecting earth and heaven and sees angels ascending and descending on it and at the top of the ladder is the Lord.  In this text, Jacob seeks further explanation of this dream from the Lord by approaching him in prayer. An angel named Sariel is sent to give Jacob further details about his vision.

The Face as God’s Kavod

Although I won’t spend much time on this topic in this post, Orlov goes into great detail about how the Ladder of Jacob dwells significantly on the subject of the Face of God.  As Jacob ascends and reaches the top of the celestial ladder, he beholds a human face “carved out of fire” that was “exceedingly terrifying” (see p. 402, or p. 4 here).  This face is accompanied by shoulders and arms, a unit which Orlov calls “the fiery anthropomorphic extent, which serves as the embodiment of the deity…” (p. 402).  This Face, explains Orlov, should be understood to be
“related to the glorious celestial entity known in theophanic traditions as God’s Kavod” (p. 403). For a biblical example of this connection, see Exod 33:18-23, where Moses asks to see God’s Glory (kavod) and God responds by saying that Moses would not see his Face. Orlov reasons that when the visionary describes “the Face,” he is describing a vision of the Face of God, an anthropomorphic entity “seated on the fiery Throne of Glory” (pp. 404-405).

Jacob’s Heavenly Counterpart

In Genesis 32, we have the account of Jacob wrestling with a “man” until he is blessed and given a new name, Israel. In Ladder of Jacob, the “man” is the angel, Sariel, Jacob’s angelic guide. Orlov explains that there is likely a link between the angel Sariel and the angel Uriel/Phanuel of other traditions (such as 2 Enoch), who serves as angelus interpres.  The name Phanuel is quite possibly related to the Peniel/Penuel mentioned in Gen 32:30-31. He cites Targum Neofiti to Gen. 32:25–31, which reads:

And Jacob was left alone; and the angel Sariel wrestled with him in the appearance of a man and he embraced him until the time the dawn arose. When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh became benumbed in his wrestling with him. And he said: “Let me go because the rise of the dawn has arrived, and because the time of the angels on high to praise has arrived, and I am a chief of those who praise”. And he said: “I will not let you go unless you bless me”. And he said to him: “What is your name?” And he said: “Jacob”. And he said: “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob but Israel, because you have claimed superiority with angels from before the Lord and with men and you have prevailed against them. And Jacob asked and said: “Tell me your name I pray”; and he said: “Why, now, do you ask my name?” And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel because: “I have seen angels from before the Lord face to face and my life has been spared”.

In Ladder of Jacob, Sariel/Phanuel does not wrestle with Jacob, but rather instructs him regarding the sacred secrets of Heaven. At the conclusion of this instruction, instead of simply being given the new name Israel, Jacob is introduced to his heavenly counterpart, the angel Israel.  Jacob, through the guidance of Sariel, is given the knowledge that he has a heavenly identity–that his celestial “self’ is truly a great luminous being who serves before the Face of God.

The imagery here is very similar to that of the Enoch tradition (1 Enoch 71 and 2 Enoch 22), where Enoch is taken up to Heaven by the angel Uriel, where he is transformed before the Throne of God into the powerful angel Metatron, with the titles (among others) Son of Man and Prince of the World. When Enoch returns to Earth, he tells his children that although they see him as the earthly, human Enoch, there is likewise an angelic Enoch that has stood in the Lord’s Presence (see p. 409).  The idea that a human can have a heavenly double appears to be an ancient Jewish belief that turns up in a number of documents.

As a note for LDS readers, it is very interesting to compare this idea to Joseph Smith’s teaching that the ancient patriarchs had a pre/post-mortal angelic identity–Adam=Michael, Noah=Gabriel, etc. In fact, every person on earth has a heavenly or spiritual identity. Doctrine and Covenants 107:54–55 is just one expression of this principle.

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.
55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.

Engraved in the Throne of Glory

As if this weren’t enough, Orlov’s discoveries get even more spicy! Not only does Jacob find that he is a celestial reality in Heaven, but that his “image” is fixed or engraved on the Throne of Glory. Dr. Orlov cites a comparable tradition from the Targums (see p. 407). In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen 28:12 the following description can be found:

He [Jacob] had a dream, and behold, a ladder was fixed in the earth with its top reaching toward the heavens … and on that day they (angels) ascended to the heavens on high, and said, Come and see Jacob the pious, whose image is fixed (engraved) in the Throne of Glory, and whom you have desired to see.

This, in itself, is an amazing idea to ponder. However, Orlov explains that there are further implications possible in this imagery.

Besides the tradition of “engraving” on the Throne, some Jewish materials point to an even more radical identification of Jacob’s image with Kavod. Jarl Fossum’s research demonstrates that in some traditions about Jacob’s image, his “image” or “likeness” is depicted not simply as engraved on the heavenly throne, but as seated upon the throne of glory. J. Fossum argues that this second tradition is original. Christopher Rowland proposed that Jacob’s image is “identical with the form of God on the throne of glory (Ezek. 1.26f.)” (p. 408).

In other words, when Jacob enters the Presence of God and looks at the Throne of Glory, instead of seeing the Lord, he sees himself sitting on the Throne! What an incredible tradition! I certainly don’t think that this was meant to be blasphemous in any way–to the contrary, I think it was meant to show God’s gift to man, his divine potential. This is the end result of deification/theosis. The pious individual has become one with the Glory of God.  As Dr. Orlov notes, Jacob seems to have become a servant of the Divine Face, and identified with it (see pp. 415-419).

I think this idea goes along well with what I presented in my last post, in the section about “throne-sharing.” The washing, anointing, naming, and crowning of the king (or high priest) resulted in his being identified with (or representing) Yahweh. We have the idea (seen in Rev. and elsewhere) of God-and-the-Lamb sitting upon the Throne of Glory. Looking at the grammar, it appears that this was one Figure sitting on the throne. Was it God or was it Christ? It doesn’t really matter, for the enthroned Christ is totally united with the Father and represents Him.  I quote again Margaret Barker’s insight into this principle:

In each case they are one, because in each case it is a human figure who has become divine…The Lamb is, therefore, a human being taken up to the throne and, as he is enthroned, he becomes divine, united with “him who sits upon the throne”. The Lamb is worshipped after he has stood in the midst of the throne (Rev 5:6). When Solomon was made king, there was an exactly similar sequence; it must have been the ancient temple ritual. Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king (1 Chron 29:23) (Barker, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, p. 91).

Although texts like Ladder of Jacob are obscure and somewhat ambiguous, I believe we can gain much from them that can give us background understanding for our modern beliefs, like faded pieces of the Gospel puzzle. There are some great principles that resemble the Plan of Salvation, our Divine Potential, and the teachings of the modern LDS Temple. I feel greatly indebted to Dr. Andrei Orlov for his excellent research on these ancient texts, of which I would hardly have any knowledge of through any other source.